Dressings and Products in Pediatric Wound Care

Alice King,1,2 Judith J. Stellar,3 Anne Blevins,1 and Kara Noelle Shah1,4,5,*
1
Pediatric Advanced Wound and Skin Services, and Divisions of 2Pediatric General and Thoracic Surgery and
4
Dermatology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
3
Department of Nursing, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
5
Departments of Pediatrics and Dermatology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Significance: The increasing complexity of medical and surgical care provided

Kara Noelle Shah, MD, PhD
Submitted for publication May 17, 2013.
Accepted in revised form September 20, 2013.
*Correspondence: Division of Pediatric Der-
matology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, 3333
Burnet Ave., MLC 3004, Cincinnati, OH 45229
(e-mail: kara.shah@cchmc.org).
to pediatric patients has resulted in a population at significant risk for com-
plications such as pressure ulcers, nonhealing surgical wounds, and moisture-
associated skin damage. Wound care practices for neonatal and pediatric
patients, including the choice of specific dressings or other wound care prod-
ucts, are currently based on a combination of provider experience and pref-
erence and a small number of published clinical guidelines based on expert
opinion; rigorous evidence-based clinical guidelines for wound management in
these populations is lacking.
Recent Advances: Advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of
wound healing have contributed to an ever-increasing number of specialized
wound care products, most of which are predominantly marketed to adult
patients and that have not been evaluated for safety and efficacy in the neo-
natal and pediatric populations. This review aims to discuss the available data
on the use of both more traditional wound care products and newer wound care
technologies in these populations, including medical-grade honey, nanocrys-
talline silver, and soft silicone-based adhesive technology.
Critical Issues: Evidence-based wound care practices and demonstration of the
safety, efficacy, and appropriate utilization of available wound care dressings
and products in the neonatal and pediatric populations should be established to
address specific concerns regarding wound management in these populations.
Future Directions: The creation and implementation of evidence-based guide-
lines for the treatment of common wounds in the neonatal and pediatric pop-
ulations is essential. In addition to an evaluation of currently marketed wound
care dressings and products used in the adult population, newer wound care
technologies should also be evaluated for use in neonates and children. In ad-
dition, further investigation of the specific pathophysiology of wound healing in
neonates and children is indicated to promote the development of wound care
dressings and products with specific applications in these populations.

SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE of the literature on the following spe-

Given the lack of consensus on the
optimal strategies for common wound
care management issues in the neo-
natal and pediatric populations and
the large number of wound care prod-
ucts on the market today, it can be
challenging to make informed deci-
sions regarding wound care in these
populations. A comprehensive review
cific areas of focus: pressure ulcers,
surgical wounds, epidermal stripping,
intravenous extravasation injuries,
moisture-associated skin damage
(MASD), and use of negative-pressure
wound therapy (NPWT) is presented,
along with management recommen-
dations based on the clinical experi-
ence of the authors.

324 j ADVANCES IN WOUND CARE, VOLUME 3, NUMBER 4

Copyright ª 2014 by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/wound.2013.0477
 DRESSINGS AND PRODUCTS IN PEDIATRIC WOUND CARE
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
Application of continuing advances in the un-
derstanding of the pathophysiology of wound
healing, in particular in neonates and children,
will hopefully result in the development of ad-
vanced wound care products and technologies that
address the specific needs of these populations.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Despite the lack of evidence-based clinical
guidelines for wound management in the neonatal
and pediatric populations, clinical practice deci-
sions can be aided by a thoughtful consideration of
the published literature and of expert opinion.
Such information can also guide future clinical
investigations into the safety and efficacy of the use
of these products in children as part of a compre-
hensive initiative to develop evidence-based clini-
cal guidelines for the treatment of acute and
chronic wounds in the neonatal and pediatric
populations.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
AND RELEVANT LITERATURE
Prevalence of wounds in pediatrics
Despite rapid advances in medical and nursing
care for pediatric and neonatal patients and the
increasingly complex level of care provided to these
patients, there has been limited formal assessment
of the prevalence, type, and management of
wounds in this population. The hospitalized neo-
natal and pediatric population is at significant risk
for the development of acute and/or chronic wounds
and other skin-related injuries.1 A series of three
hospital-acquired skin injury (HASI) prevalence
surveys performed over 2010–2011 at a university-
affiliated tertiary-care children’s hospital revealed
that pressure ulcers, both medical device-related
and immobility-related, was the most common type
of HASI, with point prevalence rates of 1.7–3.5%;
diaper dermatitis/irritant-associated dermatitis
was the next most common cause of HASI.2 In
2005, a one-day skin integrity audit performed on
all inpatients hospitalized at another university-
affiliated tertiary-care children’s hospital revealed
that 43% of patients had a wound and/or surgical
incision, 16% of patients with urine and/or stool
incontinence developed diaper dermatitis, and 6%
of patients were felt to be at risk for the develop-
ment of pressure ulcers as based on Braden Q score
assessment.3 A 2003 multisite study examining the
prevalence of pressure ulcers and skin breakdown
in the pediatric inpatient population revealed a
pressure ulcer prevalence of 4.0% and the preva-
325
lence of other forms of skin breakdown of 14.8%;
66% of pressure ulcers were facility associated.4 A
1998 survey of 215 neonatal intensive care units
reported that an average of 21% of extremely low
birth weight neonates developed skin breakdown
in the first week of life.5
A significant number of children will be dis-
charged from the hospital with a chronic wound, a
stoma, or a predisposition to impaired skin integ-
rity that will, by necessity, require some form of
home management. Among children receiving
home care, a study of 13 home care agencies indi-
cated that 17% of children had a wound; most were
treated with hydrogen peroxide, household soap, or
povidone-iodine and either left uncovered or cov-
ered with dry or saline-soaked gauze.6 These
studies further highlight the lack of clinical
knowledge and consensus on the most appropriate
standards for wound management in children.
Overview of wound care in pediatrics
Fundamentals of wound care in the neonatal
and pediatric population are similar to those ap-
plicable to adults and include eliminating any
identifiable contributing factors when possible,
cleansing of the wound, debridement of devitalized
tissue where appropriate, providing a moist wound
environment to promote wound healing, identify-
ing and treating associated infection, and protect-
ing the intact skin surrounding the wound from
maceration and skin breakdown.7,8 Optimizing
patient nutritional status is also a very important
factor.9 As compared to adults, however, there are
important age-related and neurodevelopmental
considerations that impact wound care in the neo-
natal and pediatric populations (Table 1).10
Specific concerns in the neonatal population, in
particular in premature neonates, include an im-
paired epidermal barrier, immaturity of the de-
veloping immune system with increased risk for
infection and impaired thermoregulation.8 By 34
weeks of gestation or usually within 2–3 weeks of
life in preterm infants, the epidermal barrier is
usually functionally mature, although skin fra-
gility and susceptibility to irritants and increased
risk for percutaneous absorption of topical agents
persists. Prior studies have documented disparities
in clinical practice with regards to basic skin
care and wound management in neonatal inten-
sive care units.11,12 In 2001, the Association of
Women’s Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses
and the National Association of Neonatal Nurses
published evidence-based clinical practice guide-
lines for general neonatal skin care.13 In infants
and children, wound care recommendations must
326 KING ET AL.

Table 1. Wound care considerations in neonates, infants,

and children

Premature neonate
Impaired epidermal barrier
 Increased transepidermal water loss and electrolyte imbalance
 Skin fragility and increased risk of epidermal stripping
Increased percutaneous absorption of topical agents due to increased body
surface area to weight ratio (e.g., alcohols, povidone-iodine)
Susceptibility to irritants
Impaired thermoregulation
Immature immune system
Term neonate
Skin fragility
Increased percutaneous absorption of topical agents due to increased body
surface area to weight ratio
Susceptibility to irritants
Impaired thermoregulation
Immature immune system
Infant
Increased percutaneous absorption of topical agents due to increased body Figure 1. Optimal product choice for local wound care based on depth of
surface area to weight ratio injury and amount of exudate.
May attempt to remove dressings
May contaminate wound and dressings, including the diaper area
Need to place dressings securely due to crawling, running, and playing
Fear, anxiety, and pain may complicate wound care and dressing changes
that may interfere with wound healing. Manage-
Child
ment of the wound is a dynamic process, and the
May attempt to remove dressings astute clinician should frequently reassess the
May contaminate wound and dressings wound with regard to wound bed factors, including
Need to place dressings securely due to running and playing the depth of injury and amount of exudate, and
Fear, anxiety, and pain may complicate wound care and dressing changes,
in particular with removal of adhesive dressings (‘‘tape phobia’’)
with regard to the overall patient condition and
Need for developmentally appropriate preparation for wound care and modify the use of wound care dressings and other
dressing changes, including use of child life specialists and caregivers products as needed (Fig. 2).
to provide psychological support and distraction Wound care products and dressings have
Neurodevelopmental delays may further complicate wound care
evolved dramatically from the use of simple wet or
dry gauze to highly specialized skin care products
also include neurodevelopmental and behavioral (Table 2). Although the use of wet-to-dry gauze
considerations. dressings is still a common practice in wound care,
Fortunately, in the majority of otherwise heal- the use of wet-to-dry gauze has been shown to
thy children, wound healing is brisk, uncompli- cause nonselective mechanical debridement of the
cated, and requires minimal specialized attention.
Chronically ill children, however, in particular
those with limited mobility, poor nutritional sta-
tus, immune compromise, neurodevelopmental
delays, and/or frequent hospitalization are predis-
posed to poor wound healing and iatrogenic skin
injury.
Wound healing is a complex, dynamic process
that involves four basic phases: coagulation and
hemostasis; inflammation; proliferation and re-
pair; and wound maturation and remodeling.14 As
such, the use of specific wound care products by
necessity may need to be adjusted during the
wound healing process (Fig. 1). Optimal product
choice is dependent on several factors: the type of
wound present; the overall condition of the patient,
including any relevant comorbidities; and the
condition of the wound bed, including the presence
Figure 2. Considerations in dressing and product choice based on the
of infection, excessive granulation tissue, or the
different phases of wound healing.
presence of devitalized tissue (slough or eschar)
 DRESSINGS AND PRODUCTS IN PEDIATRIC WOUND CARE
wound that results in injury to normal tissue, re-
sults in desiccation of the wound bed, and is asso-
ciated with periwound maceration and increased
pain during dressing changes; in addition, use of
wet-to-dry gauze dressings has been associated
with increased cost and labor due to need for more
frequent dressing changes and with an increased
risk for infection.15 Alternative, less painful op-
tions for selective debridement include use of oc-
clusive dressings to promote autolysis, use of
hydrogels, and enzymatic debridement. Use of ap-
propriate wound care products and dressings help
to maintain an optimal wound healing environ-
ment by maintaining adequate moisture, humid-
ity, pH, and temperature, by minimizing pain, and
by preventing damage to the skin surrounding the
wound such as epidermal stripping and maceration
as well as to address issues such as delayed wound
healing due to complications such as bacterial in-
fection, necrotic devitalized tissue, exudate, and
slough. Use of specialized wound care dressings
may also require less frequent dressing changes.
However, overall data on the use of these prod-
ucts even in adults are extremely limited, with a
recent assessment of published randomized con-
trolled trials, meta-analyses, and cost-effective-
ness studies providing only weak levels of clinical
efficacy.16
There are currently only a limited number of
published clinical guidelines for the evaluation and
management of wounds in the neonatal and pedi-
atric populations.2,13,17–21 None of these have un-
dergone the rigorous assessment required for the
generation of evidence-based guidelines. As such,
wound care practices and selection of wound care
products tend to reflect provider experience and
preference.1 Given these constraints, the authors
have utilized a combination of literature review
and personal experience on which to base a
thoughtful discussion of the use of dressings and
other wound care products in the neonatal and
pediatric populations with an emphasis on the
management of pressure ulcers, epidermal strip-
ping, surgical wounds, MASD, and intravenous
extravasation injury and on the use of NPWT.
Basic information on types of dressings, examples
of specific products often used in neonates and
children, indications for use, and special consider-
ations/cautions with use is presented in Table 2. A
discussion of other wound care strategies, includ-
ing use of bioengineered skin substitutes, and of
wound care for specialized population such as pa-
tients with epidermolysis bullosa, toxic epidermal
necrolysis, cutaneous graft versus host disease, or
burns, is beyond the scope of this article.
327
Wound management issues in pediatrics
Pressure ulcers. Pressure ulcers are common in
hospitalized neonates, infants, and children, with
estimates of point prevalence ranging from 10%
to 35%, and they are most common in patients
requiring management in an intensive care
unit.18,22,23 The most common sites for the devel-
opment of pressure ulcers in neonates and children
related to immobility are the sacrum/coccyx (most
common site in children), occiput (most common site
in infants), and heels.24 More than 50% of pressure
ulcers in hospitalized children are related to pres-
sure from devices and equipment, including blood
pressure cuffs; tracheostomy cannulas, connectors,
and tubing; oxygen delivery devices such as nasal
prongs, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation
interfaces, and continuous positive airway pressure
masks; and cutaneous oximetry probes.25 In chil-
dren, pressure ulcers related to medical devices are
seen most frequently on the head and neck in as-
sociation with the presence of a tracheostomy or
noninvasive positive pressure ventilation interface,
on the torso in association with placement of elec-
trocardiography leads, and on the digits in associa-
tion with use of pulse oximeter probes.2,3,26
The Braden Q Scale and Modified Braden Q Scale
were developed to allow for standardized assess-
ment of pressure ulcer risk in pediatric patients.
These scales are based on assessment of mobil-
ity, activity, sensory perception, moisture, friction/
shear, nutrition, and tissue perfusion/oxygenation
(Fig. 3B) and help to identify pediatric patients
requiring care in a pediatric intensive care unit
who are at risk for the development of pressure
ulcers.27,28 Prevention of pressure ulcer development
is a major nursing initiative, and is dependent on
comprehensive and frequent patient assessment
and pressure distribution in at-risk areas through
the use of interventions such as appropriate pad-
ding of bony prominences and devices that come in
contact with the skin; use of age-appropriate spe-
cialty mattress such as an alternating pressure
mattress, low-air loss, or foam or gel overlay; fre-
quent repositioning; and frequent assessment and
rotation, when possible, of medical devices.1,10,29
Unfortunately, despite use of appropriate preven-
tative measures, pressure ulcers may still occur.
The most commonly used dressings in the man-
agement of pressure ulcers in the pediatric popu-
lation include hydrocolloids, hydrogels (available
as amorphous gel and sheets), polyurethane foams,
and transparent films.30,31 In addition, NPWT is
also used in the management of Stage III and Stage
IV pressure ulcers. Medical device-related pres-
sure ulcers is a challenge in neonates and children
328 KING ET AL.

Table 2. Wound care products commonly used in neonates, infants, and children

Dressing Class Adhesion Indications Function Precautions Examples

Transparent May contain Skin tears Prevents wound Semipermanent; not Tegaderm
polyurethane film adhesive Superficial wounds with contamination intended for frequent Opsite
little to no exudate Provides moist wound dressing changes
Secondary dressing healing May result in epidermal
Secure devices to skin Promotes autolytic stripping (if adhesive
debridement present)
Nonabsorptive
Contact layer Some contain soft- Superficial tears Prevents wound Requires secondary Mepitel
silicone adhesive Superficial wounds with contamination dressing Mepital-One
little to no exudate Provides moist wound N-TERFACE
First- and second-degree healing Restore Contact
burns Allows transfer of Restore Contact Silver
Minimal to moderate exudate into Versatel
exudative wounds absorbant dressing Adaptic
Pressure ulcers Nonabsorptive Xeroform
Partial and full-thickness Conformant Wound Veil
wounds
Hydrocolloid (gelatin, May contain Minimal to moderate Prevents wound Caution in infected Duoderm
pectin, and/or adhesive exudative wounds contamination wounds Tegasorb
carboxymethyl Pressure ulcers Promotes autolytic May cause maceration Medihoney
cellulose) Partial and full-thickness debridement of periwound
wounds Minimal absorption May result in epidermal
Promotes autolytic Ease of use stripping (if adhesive
debridement present)
Pressure redistribution
Polyurethane foam and May contain Moderate to heavy Ease of removal (only if Not for use in dry Polymema
composite adhesive exudative wounds nonadherent or wounds Allevyn
Partial and full-thickness containing soft Requires a secondary Lyofoam
wounds silicone adhesive) dressing (unless Mepilex
Peristomal Ease of use compositie) Mepilex-Ag
Pressure redistribution Moderate absorption Hydrosorb
Infected woundsb Pressure redistribution
Comfortable
Hydrogel Nonadherent Minimal exudate or dry Pressure redistribution May over-hydrate Sheet:
wounds Reduce pain wound  Vigilon
Partial and full-thickness Promotes autolytic May macerate  Elastogel
wounds debridement periwound; consider Amorphous:
Burns Promotes applying skin sealant  Solosite
epithelialization first as protection  Intrasite
Adds moisture Requires secondary  Normlgel
Minimal to moderate dressing  Hypergel
absorption  Carrasyn wound gel
Fills dead space
Ease of removal
Hydrofiber (sodium None Moderate to heavy Promotes autolytic Requires secondary Aquacel
carboxymethyl exudative wounds debridement dressing Aquacel-Ag
cellulose) Partial and full-thickness Moderate to marked
wounds absorption
Wound dehiscence Ease of removal
Infected woundsb
Wounds requiring
packing
Alginate None Moderate to heavy Promotes autolytic Requires secondary Kaltostat
exudative wounds debridement dressing Medihoney
Partial and full-thickness Moderate to marked Maxorb extra
wounds absorption Maxorb extra-Ag
Wound dehiscence Ease of removal
Infected woundsb
Wounds requiring
packing

(continued )
 DRESSINGS AND PRODUCTS IN PEDIATRIC WOUND CARE
Table 2. (Continued)
Dressing Class Adhesion Indications
Barrier None Diaper dermatitis
Peristomal
a
Contains starch co-polymer, glycerol, and surfactant and approved for use in full- and partial-thickness wounds, ulcers, skin tears, surgical wounds, and
first- and second-degree burns.
b
Dressings containing silver.
and strategies to prevent these injuries include
protection of underlying skin, frequent assess-
ments of skin located under the device, and fre-
quent rotation of devices, if possible. Prevention of
tracheostomy-related pressure ulcers is aided by
frequent clinical assessment of the tracheostomy
site and by the use of a moisture-reducing and
pressure-reducing device interface.20 Simple use of
a thin hydrocolloid or thin polyurethane foam un-
der the tracheostomy cannula, securement ties,
and ventilator connector may also be effective.32 In
the authors’ experience, use of a polyurethane
foam dressing with a gentle adhesive such as soft
silicone is preferred to use of a hydrocolloid dress-
ing due to the increased risk of epidermal stripping
and skin irritation from the adhesive in the hy-
drocolloid dressings and use of a dressing with
silver is helpful for colonized tracheostomy
wounds. Amorphous hydrogels and silver impreg-
nated dressings have been used in the neonates to
treat several types of skin injury, including pres-
sure ulcers.21
Epidermal stripping. Epidermal stripping is a
common form iatrogenic skin injury in neonates
and in any pediatric patient with compromised
skin integrity, despite the use of an adhesive re-
mover prior to removal of adhesive dressings (Fig.
3C). In addition, adhesive removal is painful and
often a source of fear and anxiety in the hospital-
ized child. An evaluation of several common skin
dressings, including one using soft silicone adhe-
sive technology, demonstrated the development of
epidermal stripping with use of all dressings except
the one using a soft silicone adhesive; the use of the
dressing with soft silicone adhesive also minimized
transepidermal water loss, a measure of epidermal
barrier function.33 In the authors’ experience, use
of products with soft silicone adhesive technology is
typically better tolerated by neonates and children
with skin fragility or impaired epidermal barrier.
329
Function Precautions Examples
Protects against May be difficult to Stomahesive wafer
moisture-associated assess wound with Stomahesive powder
skin damage opaque preparations Coloplast wafer
Protects against Residual cream or Sensicare cream
epidermal stripping ointment should not Criticaid ointment
Protects against be removed prior to White petrolatum
irritation from reapplication Zinc oxide ointment
adhesives Cavilon No-Sting barrier
Marathon
The use of dressings with soft silicone adhesive
technology has also been associated with signifi-
cantly reduced pain during dressing changes.34,35
Choice of an adhesive dressing is dependent on
several factors, including the need to manage
wound exudate, the need to minimize skin trauma
during removal, the need for the dressing to remain
in place in areas of high tension, sustained adhe-
sion for the duration of the wear time.36 Use of a
skin barrier product prior to the application of the
dressing may also minimize epidermal stripping;
however, use of a skin protectant under a product
with a soft silicone adhesive may interfere with
dressing adherence. Once epidermal stripping has
occurred, management strategies to promote re-
epithelialization may include application of barrier
ointment or cyanoacrylate liquid or application of a
transparent film dressing.37
Surgical wounds. Surgical wounds are common
in the pediatric population, yet there are no clear
guidelines for routine postoperative management
(Fig. 3D). Complications include wound dehiscence
and infection, which are predictors of poor wound
healing and other complications. Postoperative
wound complications are particularly common af-
ter tracheostomy placement, occurring in 29% of
patients in one published series.38 Amorphous hy-
drogels have been used in the neonatal intensive
care unit to treat several types of surgical wounds
in the neonatal population, including tracheostomy
sites.21 In the authors’ experience, use of a hydro-
gel is also helpful in maintaining a moist wound
environment in neonates with congenital anoma-
lies with exposed mucosa such as cloacal or bladder
exstrophy.
Surgical site infections occur in 2.5–6.7% of
postoperative wounds and are more common in
contaminated and dirty/infected surgical sites.39–41
Preventing critical colonization and frank infection
of wounds is an important component of postoper-
330 KING ET AL.

Figure 3. Normal skin with intact epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissue (A). Conditions leading to pressure ulcer development include increased
pressure at the surface of the skin in conjunction with shear forces (B). Injury resulting from epidermal stripping (C), surgical wounding (D), moisture-
associated skin damage (E), and intravenous extravasation injury (F). To see this illustration in color, the reader is referred to the web version of this article at
www.liebertpub.com/wound

ative wound care; however, it has been suggested
that routine use of a wound dressing after clean
surgery has no impact on the development of post-
surgical wound infections in children.42 In addition
to the use of a variety of topical antimicrobial
agents, specialized dressings with bacteriostatic or
bactericidal properties are also available for the
treatment of colonized and/or infected wounds, in-
cluding surgical wounds. The most commonly used
antimicrobial agents incorporated into wound
dressings are honey and silver ions.
Honey has been used for centuries in many parts
of the world for wound management and has sev-
eral antimicrobial properties, including high os-
motic pressure, low pH, high sugar content, and
production of hydrogen peroxide.43 Several studies
have documented the efficacy of medical grade
honey in augmenting wound healing and addres-
sing bacterial colonization of wounds in the pedi-
atric population, in particular in oncology
patients.44,45 Although limited, reports on the use
of dressings and skin care incorporating use of
honey in neonates have also been published.43 In
the authors’ experience, some patients may report
stinging with use of medical grade honey products,
but overall they appear well tolerated and have
been successfully used in the treatment of extrav-
asation injury in neonates and in the management
of pressure ulcers in neonates and children of all
ages.
Use of wound dressings containing silver as an
antibacterial agent in the management of critically
colonized wounds and in the management of burns
has gained popularity in adults; however, use in
children has not received rigorous evaluation.
There are several different technologies that in-
volve the incorporation of silver into wound dress-
ings, including nanocrystalline silver and ionic
silver. Silver ions exert anti-inflammatory and
antibacterial effects; although nanocrystalline
technology appears to provide the lowest risk of
toxicity and the highest level of sustained silver
 DRESSINGS AND PRODUCTS IN PEDIATRIC WOUND CARE
release to the wound, concerns exist regarding their
safety.46,47 Use in children must take into consid-
eration concerns for silver toxicity as elevated se-
rum silver levels have been documented in children
with burns treated with silver-containing dress-
ings.48 Due to these concerns, the authors advocate
for judicious use of silver-containing wound care
products in children and for limiting their use to no
more than two consecutive weeks when possible.
There are several reports in the literature detailing
use of silver-impregnated dressings in children,
predominantly in burn care.49–51
Wound dehiscence is a significant risk factor for
postsurgical morbidity and mortality. Risk factors
for wound dehiscence after laparotomy in children
include age less than 1 year, presence of wound
infection, median incision, and emergency sur-
gery.52 A number of different approaches to the
management of wound dehiscence may be consid-
ered depending on the size and location of the
wound and on the presence of infection. Appro-
priate wound assessment includes the following:
the depth of the wound; the condition of the wound
bed including the presence of granulation tissue,
slough, and/or eschar; the presence of exposed su-
tures, hardware, supporting structure (muscle,
bone tendon, and muscle/fascia), or internal or-
gans; the amount and type of drainage; the pres-
ence of odor; the condition of the wound margins;
the presence of associated pain; and the condi-
tion of the periwound skin. Commonly used dress-
ings for the management of wound dehiscence
include alginates, hydrofibers, hydrogels, hydro-
colloids, and foams, depending on the character-
istics of the wound. In selected patients, use of
NPWT may be considered in the management of
chronic and/or otherwise complicated surgical
wounds.
Moisture-associated skin damage. MASD re-
sults from prolonged skin exposure to factors such
as urine, stool, saliva, mucus, and wound exudate,
which in combination with other factors such as
friction, microorganisms, and chemical irritation,
results in skin inflammation (Fig. 3E).53 Diaper
dermatitis is the most common type of MASD ob-
served in the pediatric inpatient population with a
point prevalence of 24% in one study; a compre-
hensive literature review combined with expert
opinion and benchmarking with several large pe-
diatric hospitals concluded that the available evi-
dence supports the use of superabsorbent diapers
with frequent diaper changes and routine use of
skin protectants containing petrolatum and/or zinc
oxide in the perineal area.17
331
Skin issues related to MASD are common in
children with gastrostomy tubes and include gran-
ulation tissue formation, infection, and skin irrita-
tion as a result of leakage.54,55 Use of a hydrocolloid
or foam dressing to protect the skin around the
gastrostomy site may be helpful in minimizing ir-
ritation from leakage, although in the authors’ ex-
perience use of a hydrofiber dressing around the
gastrostomy is more helpful when there is a signif-
icant amount of drainage due to the limited ab-
sorptive capacity of hydrocolloid dressings. In the
experience of one of the authors, use of a hydrofiber
dressing around the gastrostomy can also help to
prevent the formation of hypergranulation tissue. A
barrier ointment such as petrolatum or zinc oxide or
a skin-protection powder may be applied to irritated
or eroded skin as needed and are also helpful in the
management of ileostomy and colostomy site der-
matitis.56 The authors find that the application of
Stomahesive Protective Powder combined with a
skin barrier product such as 3M Cavilon No Sting
Skin Barrier or Coloplast Brave Skin Barrier Wipe
(‘‘crusting technique’’) followed by application of a
barrier ointment is a very effective strategy for the
management of MASD. Skin protection can also be
achieved with use of a cyanoacrylate topical liquid.
When dry, these agents create a flexible barrier
against moisture, friction, and irritants. In the ex-
perience of one the authors, they are particularly
useful for protection against highly caustic effluent
from high output ostomies, incontinence-associated
dermatitis in patients with short bowel syndrome,
and for protection around various feeding and sur-
gical tubes such as biliary drains. They are not in-
dicated for use in deep, open wounds; chronic or
nonhealing wounds; second- or third-degree burns;
or infected wounds.
Intravenous extravasation injury. Extravasation
injury associated with use of intravenous catheters
is common in hospitalized children, in particular in
neonates, and tissue damage and necrosis can re-
sult in significant scarring and long-term compli-
cations (Fig. 3F). For significant extravasation
injury in neonates that results in moderate to se-
vere swelling, blanching, and pain at the site with
skin that is cool to the touch, with or without de-
creased or absent distal pulses and evidence of
tissue necrosis, the use of an aqueous gel followed
by the application of a hydrofiber sheet covered by
a hydrocolloid dressing has been suggested as a
reasonable approach to management.57 Use of a
hydrogel dressing or product alone has also been
reported to be effective in the management of ex-
travasation injury.21,58
332 KING ET AL.

Negative-pressure wound therapy.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGES
NPWT, also known as vacuum-assisted
 Although general principles of wound healing are similar in children and
closure, has been shown to facilitate adults, there are limited clinical guidelines to direct the choice of specific
wound healing for a variety of acute and wound care products in the management of wounds in children.
chronic wounds in adults. NPWT reduces
 Developmental and behavioral considerations should be taken into ac-
tissue edema, increases tissue perfusion,
count when choosing wound management strategies in neonates, in-
removes exudate, and facilitates granu-
fants, and children.
lation tissue formation. Several retro-
spective case series provide evidence that  Epidermal stripping of neonatal skin in particular and of compromised
use of NPWT in neonates and children skin in pediatric patients of any age is a common form iatrogenic skin
injury that can be minimized with the use of dressings with soft silicone-
can augment wound healing in a variety
based adhesives.
of acute and chronic wounds, including
infected wounds, those with exposed or-  The use of medical-grade honey appears to be safe and well tolerated
thopedic hardware, and surgical wound for use in children.
dehiscence, with successful use reported  The use of silver-based technology in wound dressings for use in children
in 92–100% of patients.19,59–63 Reported to provide antimicrobial properties requires additional evaluation due to
complications, including enteric fistula concerns regarding silver toxicity, although the use of newer nanocrys-
formation, bleeding, pain, and periwound talline silver products appears promising.
skin breakdown, were uncommon and in  Wound care in neonates, infants, and children should also include ap-
the case of fistula formation, related at propriate neurodevelopmental assessment and modification of the
least in part to the patients’ underlying wound care regimen to ensure minimal pain and anxiety and to facilitate
disease process. In addition to facilitating wound healing.
wound healing, benefits of NPWT in-
cluded decreased frequency of dressing
changes, reduced need for use of pain medication, atric populations, the available technologies for
and decreased length of hospital stay. advanced wound care continue to evolve; thus, ad-
The safety and efficacy of these devices in neo- ditional wound care products with potential pedi-
nates, infants, and children, however, has not been atric and/or neonatal applications will hopefully
established and there are no devices that are ap- emerge in the future. In addition, further investi-
proved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gation of the specific pathophysiology of wound
for use in these populations; serious safety events, healing in neonates and children is indicated to
including injury and death related to bleeding and promote the development of wound care dressings
infection secondary to retained foam dressing and products with specific applications in these
particles, have been reported in adults treated with populations.
NPWT. Guidelines for the use of NPWT in neona-
tes, infants, and children have been proposed and
include age- and wound-specific recommendations CONCLUSIONS
for negative pressure settings and choice of foam The lack of evidence-based clinical guidelines
19
dressing. In the experience of several of the au- for the prevention and management of common
thors, negative pressure settings that correlate to skin and wound issues in the neonatal and pedi-
- 25 mmHg above the mean arterial blood pressure atric population is an obstacle to the provision of
of the patient in the neonate, infant, and toddler appropriate and accountable care. The develop-
population are initially utilized and adjusted as ment of evidence-based practice guidelines that
needed based on comorbidities, perfusion status, address these concerns and incorporate the ra-
wound location, and pain tolerance. Providers tional choice of specialized wound care dressings
should remember that neonates and infants in and products should be a priority for wound care
particular are at risk for fluid loss and dehydration specialists with pediatric and neonatal expertise
during treatment with NPWT. with a goal of promoting standardization of clini-
cal practices.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the promotion of an initiative to ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
develop clinical trials to address the safety and ef- AND FUNDING SOURCES
ficacy of the use of currently marketed wound care The authors have not received funding for this
dressings and products in the neonatal and pedi- work.
 DRESSINGS AND PRODUCTS IN PEDIATRIC WOUND CARE 333

AUTHOR DISCLOSURE AND GHOSTWRITING Philadelphia. She has an interest in pediatric

No competing financial interests exist. The con- surgical wounds, pressure ulcers, incontinence-
tent of this article was expressly written by the associated dermatitis, and complex congenital
authors listed. No ghostwriters were used to write anomalies requiring ostomies. Anne Blevins,
this article. BSN, RN, WCC, CWOCN, is a Certified Wound
Ostomy Continence Nurse with the Pediatric
Advanced Wound and Skin Services at Cincin-
ABOUT THE AUTHORS nati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. She
Alice King, MD, is a General Surgery Re- has an interest in developing a standardized
sident in the Department of Surgery at the nursing guideline for Pediatric Wound Care and
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. management of moisture-associated skin dam-
She is completing a 2-year postdoctoral research age. Kara N. Shah, MD, PhD, is the Director of
fellowship as the Clinical and Translational Pe- the Division of Dermatology and the Medical
diatric Wound Healing and Research Fellow at Director of the Pediatric Advanced Wound and
the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Skin Services at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital
Center. Judith J. Stellar, MSN, CRNP, PNP- Medical Center. She has an interest in the di-
BC, CWOCN, is a Certified Pediatric Nurse agnosis and management of acute and chronic
Practitioner and Certified Wound Ostomy Con- disorders of the skin characterized by impaired
tinence Nurse at The Children’s Hospital of skin integrity and/or impaired wound healing.

REFERENCES
1. Baharestani MM: An overview of neonatal and
pediatric wound care knowledge and consider-
ations. Ostomy Wound Manage 2007; 53: 34.
2. Stellar JJ, Hutchins L, Brodecki DL, and Davis KF:
Hospital-acquired skin injury in children: Nurse-
led interventions to improve outcomes. J Wound
Ostomy Continence Nurs 2013; 40: 3S.
3. Noonan C, Quigley S, and Curley MA: Skin
integrity in hospitalized infants and children:
a prevalence survey. J Pediatr Nurs 2006; 21:
445.
4. McLane KM, Bookout K, McCord S, McCain J, and
Jefferson LS: The 2003 national pediatric pres-
sure ulcer and skin breakdown prevalence survey:
a multisite study. J Wound Ostomy Continence
Nurs 2004; 31: 168.
5. Maguire DP: Skin protection and breakdown in
the ELBW infant. A national survey. Clin Nurs Res
1999; 8: 222.
6. Pieper B, Templin T, Dobal M, and Jacox A:
Prevalence and types of wounds among children
receiving care in the home. Ostomy Wound
Manage 2000; 46: 36.
7. McCord SS and Levy ML: Practical guide to pe-
diatric wound care. Semin Plast Surg 2006; 20:
192.
8. Fox MD: Wound care in the neonatal intensive
care unit. Neonatal Netw 2011; 30: 291.
9. Rodriguez-Key M and Alonzi A: Nutrition, skin
integrity, and pressure ulcer healing in chronically
ill children: an overview. Ostomy Wound Manage
2007; 53: 56.
10. Baharestani MM and Pope E: Chronic wound care
in neonates and children. In: Chronic Wound Care:
A Clinical Source Book for Healthcare Profes-
sionals, edited by Krasner D, Rodeheaver GT, and
Sibbald RD, 4th ed. Wayne: HMP Communica-
tions, 2007, pp. 679–694.
11. Munson KA, Bare DE, Hoath SB, and Visscher MO:
A survey of skin care practices for premature low
birth weight infants. Neonatal Netw 1999; 18: 25.
12. Baker SF, Smith BJ, Donohue PK, and Gleason CA:
Skin care management practices for premature
infants. J Perinatol 1999; 19: 426.
13. Lund CH, Osborne JW, Kuller J, Lane AT, Lott
JW, and Raines DA: Neonatal skin care: clinical
outcomes of the AWHONN/NANN Evidence-
Based Clinical Practice Guideline. Association
of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal
Nurses and the National Association of Neonatal
Nurses. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2001;
30: 41.
14. Broughton G, 2nd, Janis JE, and Attinger CE:
Wound healing: an overview. Plast Reconstr Surg
2006; 117 (7 Suppl): 1e-S.
15. Spear M: Wet-to-dry dressings-evaluating the
evidence. Plast Surg Nurs 2008; 28: 92.
16. Chaby G, Senet P, Vaneau M, et al.: Dressings for
acute and chronic wounds: a systematic review.
Arch Dermatol 2007; 143: 1297.
17. Heimall LM, Storey B, Stellar JJ, and Davis KF:
Beginning at the bottom: evidence-based care of
diaper dermatitis. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs
2012; 37: 10.
18. Schindler CA, Mikhailov TA, Kuhn EM, et al.:
Protecting fragile skin: nursing interventions to
decrease development of pressure ulcers in pe-
diatric intensive care. Am J Crit Care 2011; 20: 26.
19. Baharestani M, Amjad I, Bookout K, et al.: V.A.C.
therapy in the management of paediatric wounds:
clinical review and experience. Int Wound J 2009;
6 (Suppl 1): 1.
20. Boesch RP, Myers C, Garrett T, et al.: Prevention
of tracheostomy-related pressure ulcers in chil-
dren. Pediatrics 2012; 129: e792.
21. Cisler-Cahill L: A protocol for the use of amor-
phous hydrogel to support wound healing in
neonatal patients: an adjunct to nursing skin care.
Neonatal Netw 2006; 25: 267.
22. Schluer AB, Halfens RJ, and Schols JM: Pediatric
pressure ulcer prevalence: a multicenter, cross-
sectional, point prevalence study in Switzerland.
Ostomy Wound Manage 2012; 58: 18.
23. Curley MA, Quigley SM, and Lin M: Pressure ulcers
in pediatric intensive care: incidence and associ-
ated factors. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2003; 4: 284.
24. Baldwin KM: Incidence and prevalence of pres-
sure ulcers in children. Adv Skin Wound Care
2002; 15: 121.
25. Willock J, Harris C, Harrison J, and Poole C:
Identifying the characteristics of children with
pressure ulcers. Nurs Times 2005; 101: 40.
26. Zollo MB, Gostisha ML, Berens RJ, Schmidt JE,
and Weigle CG: Altered skin integrity in children
admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit. J Nurs
Care Qual 1996; 11: 62.
334 KING ET AL.

27. Curley MA, Razmus IS, Roberts KE, and Wypij D: surgery: a study of 575 patients in a university 54. Goldberg E, Barton S, Xanthopoulos MS, Stettler
Predicting pressure ulcer risk in pediatric pa- hospital. Pediatr Surg Int 2003; 19: 436. N, and Liacouras CA: A descriptive study of
tients: the Braden Q Scale. Nurs Res 2003; complications of gastrostomy tubes in children. J
41. Bhattacharyya N and Kosloske AM: Postoperative
52: 22. Pediatr Nurs 2010; 25: 72.
wound infection in pediatric surgical patients: a
28. Quigley SM and Curley MA: Skin integrity in the study of 676 infants and children. J Pediatr Surg 55. Friedman JN, Ahmed S, Connolly B, Chait P,
pediatric population: preventing and managing 1990; 25: 125. and Mahant S: Complications associated
pressure ulcers. J Soc Pediatr Nurs 1996; 1: 7. with image-guided gastrostomy and gastro-
42. Merei JM: Pediatric clean surgical wounds: is
jejunostomy tubes in children. Pediatrics 2004;
29. Butler CT: Pediatric skin care: guidelines for as- dressing necessary? J Pediatr Surg 2004; 39:
114: 458.
sessment, prevention, and treatment. Pediatr Nurs 1871.
2006; 32: 443. 56. Borkowski S: Pediatric stomas, tubes, and appli-
43. Bell SG: The therapeutic use of honey. Neonatal
ances. Pediatr Clin North Am 1998; 45: 1419.
30. Baharestani MM and Ratliff CR: Pressure ulcers in Netw 2007; 26: 247.
neonates and children: an NPUAP white paper. 57. Sawatzky-Dickson D and Bodnaryk K: Neonatal
44. Biglari B, Moghaddam A, Santos K, et al.: Multi-
Adv Skin Wound Care 2007; 20: 208. intravenous extravasation injuries: evaluation of a
centre prospective observational study on pro-
wound care protocol. Neonatal Netw 2006; 25:
31. Wu SS, Ahn C, Emmons KR, and Salcido RS: fessional wound care using honey (Medihoney).
13.
Pressure ulcers in pediatric patients with spinal Int Wound J 2012; 10: 252.
cord injury: a review of assessment, prevention, 58. Lehr VT, Lulic-Botica M, Lindblad WJ, Kazzi NJ,
45. Simon A, Sofka K, Wiszniewsky G, Blaser G, Bode
and topical management. Adv Skin Wound Care and Aranda JV: Management of infiltration injury
U, and Fleischhack G: Wound care with antibac-
2009; 22: 273. in neonates using duoderm hydroactive gel. Am J
terial honey (Medihoney) in pediatric hematology-
Perinatol 2004; 21: 409.
32. Bressler K, Coladipietro L, and Holinger LD: Pro- oncology. Support Care Cancer 2006; 14: 91.
tection of the cervical skin in the pediatric patient 59. Baharestani MM: Use of negative pressure wound
46. Wilkinson LJ, White RJ, and Chipman JK: Silver
with a recent tracheostomy. Otolaryngol Head therapy in the treatment of neonatal and pedi-
and nanoparticles of silver in wound dressings: a
Neck Surg 1997; 116: 414. atric wounds: a retrospective examination of
review of efficacy and safety. J Wound Care
clinical outcomes. Ostomy Wound Manage 2007;
33. Waring M, Bielfeldt S, Matzold K, Wilhelm KP, 2011; 20: 543.
53: 75.
and Butcher M: An evaluation of the skin stripping
47. Fong J and Wood F: Nanocrystalline silver
of wound dressing adhesives. J Wound Care 60. Butter A, Emran M, Al-Jazaeri A, and Ouimet A:
dressings in wound management: a review. Int J
2011; 20: 412. Vacuum-assisted closure for wound management
Nanomed 2006; 1: 441.
in the pediatric population. J Pediatr Surg 2006;
34. Davies P and Rippon M: Evidence review: the
48. Wang XQ, Kempf M, Mott J, et al.: Silver ab- 41: 940.
clinical benefits of Safetac technology in wound
sorption on burns after the application of Acti-
care. J Wound Care 2008; 2008 Suppl: 3. 61. McCord SS, Naik-Mathuria BJ, Murphy KM, et al.:
coat: data from pediatric patients and a porcine
35. Morris C, Emsley P, Marland E, Meuleneire F, and burn model. J Burn Care Res 2009; 30: 341. Negative pressure therapy is effective to manage
White R: Use of wound dressings with soft silicone a variety of wounds in infants and children.
49. Rustogi R, Mill J, Fraser JF, and Kimble RM: The Wound Repair Regen 2007; 15: 296.
adhesive technology. Paediatr Nurs 2009; 21: 38.
use of Acticoat in neonatal burns. Burns 2005; 31:
36. Rippon M, White R, and Davies P: Skin adhesives 878. 62. Mooney JF, 3rd, Argenta LC, Marks MW, Mor-
and their role in wound dressings. Wounds UK ykwas MJ, and DeFranzo AJ: Treatment of soft
50. Paddock HN, Fabia R, Giles S, Hayes J, Lowell W, tissue defects in pediatric patients using the
2007; 3: 76.
and Besner GE: A silver impregnated antimicrobial V.A.C. system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; (376):
37. Visscher M, Hoath SB, Conroy E, and Wickett RR: dressing reduces hospital length of stay for pe- 26.
Effect of semipermeable membranes on skin diatric patients with burns. J Burn Care Res 2007;
barrier repair following tape stripping. Arch Der- 28: 409. 63. Rentea RM, Somers KK, Cassidy L, Enters J, and
matol Res 2001; 293: 491. Arca MJ: Negative pressure wound therapy in
51. Borsuk DE, Gallant M, Richard D, and Williams infants and children: a single-institution experi-
38. Jaryszak EM, Shah RK, Amling J, and Pena MT: HB: Silver-coated nylon dressings for pediatric ence. J Surg Res 2013; 184: 658.
Pediatric tracheotomy wound complications: inci- burn victims. Can J Plast Surg 2007; 15: 29.
dence and significance. Arch Otolaryngol Head
52. van Ramshorst GH, Salu NE, Bax NM, et al.: Risk
Neck Surg 2011; 137: 363.
factors for abdominal wound dehiscence in chil-
39. Horwitz JR, Chwals WJ, Doski JJ, Suescun EA, dren: a case-control study. World J Surg 2009; 33: Abbreviations
Cheu HW, and Lally KP: Pediatric wound infec- 1509. and Acronyms
tions: a prospective multicenter study. Ann Surg
53. Gray M, Black JM, Baharestani MM, et al.: HASI ¼ hospital-acquired skin injury
1998; 227: 553.
Moisture-associated skin damage: overview and MASD ¼ moisture-associated skin damage
40. Duque-Estrada EO, Duarte MR, Rodrigues DM, pathophysiology. J Wound Ostomy Continence NPWT ¼ negative-pressure wound therapy
and Raphael MD: Wound infections in pediatric Nurs 2011; 38: 233.